Charlie: the ledger

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds behavioral context by stating what the ledger reports (who cleared toil, Champion, open amount). No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is concise, though slightly dense. Every part adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple tool (2 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers the main outputs but omits parameter details (e.g., what 'mode' values do) and usage context. Adequate but has gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the 'mode' or 'repo' parameters. With 0% coverage, the description should compensate but fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs and resources: 'Report the credit ledger for standup or retro', listing what is included (who cleared toil, Champion, open amount). It distinguishes from sibling tools (charlie_summary, etc.) by its focus on ledger reporting.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions usage contexts ('for standup or retro'), implying when to use. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or contrast with sibling tools like charlie_summary or charlie_trend.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.